If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Marriage is a religious rite, and government has no place saying what various religions have to accept, however, I see no logic in giving the heterosexual couple, both on their 5th or 6th "life" partners (who have only known each other for a week and are now "married") more rights than the long term mutually fidelitous gay couple. I don't think that homosexuality is a "choice". With the historical level of persecution, who would "choose" that? Couples that wish to declare themselves committed, and wish to have some kind of legally recognized "union" should be able to have that with the same rights and responsibilities under the law regardless of sexual orientation. The fact that it took a very personal experience to allow Portman to achieve that level of enlightenment doesn't bother me at all. Thirty years ago my opinions were probably different, although I hadn't given it much thought. I have now lived long enough to have 1. been married for 36yrs (day before yesterday), 2. learned how important it is to have someone with which to share life's experiences (good times and bad), 3. known a fair number of gay folks (some decent, some rotten, just like the straight folks I know), and 4. come to the realization that perhaps the govt has no place in attempting to tell consenting adults who they can love.

Any doctrine that weakens personal responsibility for judgment and for action helps create the attitudes that welcome and support the totalitarian state.
(John Dewey)

Associate yourself with men of good quality if you esteem your own reputation; for 'tis better to be alone than in bad company.
(George Washington)

Since I live in Ohio not far from him, it started me thinking -- although most will say that I should quit thinking because it gets me in trouble.

It's quite possible that the Conservative and Republicans lost the last two Presidential elections and 5 of the last 6 popular votes because their platform alienates enough people that they can't create a coalition large enough to affect the election. (You'll notice that after the last retreat they decided to change there stance on immigration to go after that voting block.)

If he chooses to run, Portman can get re-elected. And that may be the whole point. He may be choosing to distance himself from the "traditional" party so that he can more easily get re-elected. He might be showing the Republican Party that winning elections by supporting popular opinion is better than losing elections while standing on your values.

Since I live in Ohio not far from him, it started me thinking -- although most will say that I should quit thinking because it gets me in trouble.

It's quite possible that the Conservative and Republicans lost the last two Presidential elections and 5 of the last 6 popular votes because their platform alienates enough people that they can't create a coalition large enough to affect the election. (You'll notice that after the last retreat they decided to change there stance on immigration to go after that voting block.)

If he chooses to run, Portman can get re-elected. And that may be the whole point. He may be choosing to distance himself from the "traditional" party so that he can more easily get re-elected. He might be showing the Republican Party that winning elections by supporting popular opinion is better than losing elections while standing on your values.

Or, perhaps having now had a true personal experience with the issue, he has had an actual change of heart. I am just not sure how "values" are involved here. I am not sure how two people remaining true to each other in a loving committed relationship, and wanting that relationship to somehow be acknowledged, is an example of poor values. People hopping from one marriage to another or engaging in serial promiscuity certainly shows questionable values, but I don't think that is what gay marriage is about.

Any doctrine that weakens personal responsibility for judgment and for action helps create the attitudes that welcome and support the totalitarian state.
(John Dewey)

Associate yourself with men of good quality if you esteem your own reputation; for 'tis better to be alone than in bad company.
(George Washington)

I do not begrudge anyone of their sexual preference. That is none of my business or in my opinion the business of the government.

What I am trying to say is that he is against Gays & Lesbians right up to the day it affected HIM personally then it's OK. My belief is that if you truly believe in a cause, whether that be Homosexuality, Cancer or Guns then support your cause from the start. Do not wait until it suddenly affects you otherwise you are a bandwagon jumper/hypocrite. That is my opinion and of course because we live in this great country of ours everyone is entitled to their own opinion. I don't really care if it affects him one way or the other politically.

Originally Posted by BonMallari

Why is he now a hippocrit , his son comes out of the closet and he changes his stance

My brother in Colorado refused to change his stance when his son came out of the closet and it has put the hurt on his marriage and relationship with his som

Until you walk in Sen Portmans shoes maybe we shouldn't be so quick to judge him

While I think my marriage is between God, my spouse, and myself, it irritates me that the government thinks they are a gatekeeper of the institution. The only real issue with this is the tax code. It everyone paid the same taxes with no perks for being married that would be great. Limit the government to giving out civil unions and take the word marriage out of it. We should look to our religions to define marriage not our politcs

I do not begrudge anyone of their sexual preference. That is none of my business or in my opinion the business of the government.

What I am trying to say is that he is against Gays & Lesbians right up to the day it affected HIM personally then it's OK. My belief is that if you truly believe in a cause, whether that be Homosexuality, Cancer or Guns then support your cause from the start. Do not wait until it suddenly affects you otherwise you are a bandwagon jumper/hypocrite. That is my opinion and of course because we live in this great country of ours everyone is entitled to their own opinion. I don't really care if it affects him one way or the other politically.

Have you ever changed your mind, the real hypocrisy would be for him to keep campaigning for an anti gay stance but condoning his son's actions

All my Exes live in Texas

Originally Posted by lanse brown

A few things that I learned still ring true. "Lanse when you get a gift, say thank you and walk away. When you get a screwing walk away. You are going to get a lot more screwings than gifts"

Yes. My brother has a sister in law who is gay and his opinion is still pretty un-accepting ( of course you would have to know the sister-in-law). I questioned him about his Christian values and his position was hate the sin, love the sinner.

Any doctrine that weakens personal responsibility for judgment and for action helps create the attitudes that welcome and support the totalitarian state.
(John Dewey)

Associate yourself with men of good quality if you esteem your own reputation; for 'tis better to be alone than in bad company.
(George Washington)